Mumbai Court April 1983 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. Apar (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD273(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department relates to the assessment year 1977-78, for which the relevant previous year ended on 30-4-1976.2. The only ground taken in the appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment order with directions to the ITO that the fresh assessment should be made after taking into cognizance a revised return filed on 7-8-1980.3. For appreciating the dispute involved in the present appeal, it is necessary to set out certain dates :31-10-1977 Return filed under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')22-3-1980 Draft order under Section 144B of the Act sent to the assessee by the ITO11-7-1980 Further objections filed and forwarded7-8-1980 to the IAC Revised return filed 4. The return on 31-10-1977 had declared a net loss of Rs. 18,80,620.This was revised as net loss of Rs. 20,51,430 by the revised return filed on 14-6-1978. The enhanced loss was on account of a claim for weighted deduction of Rs. 1,70,804 under Section 35B ...
Tag this Judgment!Third Income-tax Officer Vs. Shivaji Park Gymkhana
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD462(Mum.)
1. This is a departmental appeal. It relates to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1977-78. Return for the year was filed on 7-7-1979 disclosing 'nil' income on the ground that its income was exempt under Sections 10(25) and 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). After hearing the assessee on quite a few occasions, the ITO held that the income was not exempt from tax as claimed and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 19-3-1980 determining the total income at Rs. 1,49,060.2. It was, inter alia, contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the variation between the assessed income and the income returned exceeded the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 fixed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 144B(1)/(6)of the Act, and, therefore, the completion of the assessment by the ITO under Section 143(3) without following the mandatory provisions of Section 144B was bad and illegal.For reasons given in paragraphs 5 to 7 of his order, the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1983
Reported in: [1983]6ITD24(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri V. Balasubramanian, Vice President - In 1936 a licence for the supply of electrical energy to Anand town was granted by the Government of Bombay to Crompton Ltd., under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In 1937 under the same terms and conditions the licence was acquired by the present assessee, the Anand Electric Supply Co. Ltd. The company worked the undertaking until 16-2-1975 when it was taken over by the Gujarat Electricity Board. The relevant portions of the notification of the Government of Gujarat are :'AND WHEREAS the said licence under his letter dated 9th January, 1975 has approached the Government of Gujarat under section 4(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for revoking the said license.AND WHEREAS in the opinion of the Government of Gujarat public interest permits the revocation of the said license.AND WHEREAS the said licensee has agreed to hand over the assets of his undertaking to the Gujarat Electricity Board, who has shown willingness to take over ...
Tag this Judgment!Sun Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC869DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 129-A of the Customs Act filed by M/s.Sun Export Corporation against Orders No. S/10-83/81 dated 6-11-81 of the Deputy Collector of Customs and No. S/49-76/82-L dated 30-9-82 of the Appellate Collector of Customs under which a fine of Rs. 15,000 has been levied in lieu of confiscation of the consignment of 20 steel drums of Sorbitol 70% USP valued at Rs. 28,985 imported under Bill of Entry IGM No. 962 item No. 280 Ex. s.s. LENINO. The learned Advocate has contended that the orders of the lower authorities are based on mis-application of the Import Policy. They have held that the entry at Sr. No. 392 "Sorbitol" includes Sorbitol solution 70% USP which has been imported by the appellants. This is not correct as the two commodities are quite separate. The learned Advocate contended that the importers had submitted two licences which had been specifically endorsed with permission to import goods under O.G.L. The basic claim of the appellants was that the so...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: 1983LC786D(Bombay); 1983(13)ELT904(Bom)
1. On 6th August 1960, Government of India issued Notification No. 82/60 (referred to hereafter as 'the 1960 Notification') exempting from customs duty, (subject to certain conditions, one of them being the execution of a bond), component parts of any machinery imported into India and proved to the Collector's satisfaction to be required for the purpose of the initial setting up of that machinery or its assembly or manufacture. On 5th January 1963, Government of India issued Notification No. 2/63 (referred to hereafter as 'the 1963 Notification'), exempting from customs duty, subject to the execution of a bond, 'parts of all tractors when imported into India solely for agricultural purposes.'2. The petitioner is the successor in title of one International Tractor Company of India Ltd.', and for convenience is referred to hereafter as 'the Company'. Since 1964 the Company manufactured agricultural tractors, (declared to be an essential commodity by Government of India, which from time t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohmad Hussen ShamshoddIn Vs. FakruddIn Abasali MomIn and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR42; 1984MhLJ422
D.B. Deshpande, J. 1 The petitioner is a landlord of the suit-house bearing No. 18/125 situated at Osmanabad. The petitioner mortgaged this property with possession in favour of the present respondent No. 1 by a registered mortgage-deed, dated the 15th April, 1970, for an amount of Rs. 1,200/-. The mortgages was to retain and enjoy the possession of the mortgaged property till the mortgage amount was repaid to the mortgage-respondent No. 1. Possession of the house was accordingly given to the respondent No. 1 under the terms of the mortgage-deed. In 1973, the petitioner filed a regular civil suit for redemption and for possession of the suit-house. In Second Appeal No. 623/77 this Court on 14-9-1982 allowed the appeal and passed a decree for redemption in favour of the petitioner and for possession of the suit-house. The amount of mortgage is undisputedly deposited by the petitioner.2. After obtaining this decree the petitioner filed Regular Darkhast No. 178/82 for possession of the su...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Ganpat Koshire Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1769
Pratap, J.1. This appeal by the original accused questions the legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in sessions Case No. 150 of 1979, the conviction being for an offence of murder punishable under S. 302. Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in that behalf.2. The accused Balu Ganpat Koshire was married to Mira some time in 1973. Of the said marriage, the couple had a son Sandip who was four years' old at the time of the incident. The incident constituting of subject matter of the present prosecution occurred in the evening at about 7 O'clock on 26-9-1979 in the house of the accused. In the early part of the very day, the accused, his wife Mira and their son Sandip had returned from about a month's residence at Vani at the house of Hirabai, the sister of the accused. Just prior to the occurrence in question, wife Mira and son Sandip were sitting in their field near thei...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1983
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT172(Bom); [1982]135ITR330a(Bom)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to proceedings originally commenced under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Central Excise Rules, 1944, framed thereunder (hereafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the Act and the Rules).2. The International Tractor Company of India Limited - engaged at the relevant time in the manufacture of tractors - was by order dated 18th May 1978, passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 789 of 1977, amalgamated with Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, the petitioners herein. Both these are, hereafter for convenience, referred to as the petitioners.3. For manufacture of tractors the petitioners needed parts and accessories of motor vehicles for use as original equipments. Tariff Item No. 34A of the First Schedule to the Act prescribed the rates of duty for such parts and accessories. In exercise of its powers under Rule 8 of the Rules, the Central Government issued on 29th May 1971 a notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Leukoplast (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2106(Bom); [1983]140ITR42a(Bom)
Gadgil, J.1. The petitioner company has filed this petition for a writ directing the respondents, namely the Union of India and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, to refund the amount of Rs. 17,72,048.75 P. on the ground that this amount was paid as Excise Duty under a mistake of law and that the petitioner be entitled to have it back.2. The petitioner company is manufacturing an article known as LEUKOPLAST Zinc Oxide Self Adhesive Plaster B.P.C. This is an excisable article under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Before 1975 there was some dispute as to whether this article falls under Item 60. However, that aspect is not relevant for this petition. A residuary Item No. 68 was included in the Schedule in 1975. That entry provides certain Excise Duty for all goods not elsewhere specified in the Schedule. After this addition of residuary Item No. 68 the petitioner started paying the Excise Duty. The petitioner's case is that by reason of an Exemption Notification No. 55/75...
Tag this Judgment!Hukumchand Chunilal Bagmar and ors. Vs. Nasik Merchants Co-operative B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR1; 1983MhLJ921
M.N. Chandurkar, Ag. C.J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, in an Election Petition under section 144-T of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which was filed by respondent No. 5 challenging the election of the present petitioner as members of the Committee of respondent No. 1 which is the Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited, Nasik.2. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 Bank is a Specified Society governed by the provisions of Chapter XI-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The respondent No. 1 was declared as a specified society under section 73(G) of the Act in or about May 1981. The Bye-laws of the Bank provided that the Board of Directors of the Bank would consist of 15 members, out of which one member was to be co-opted from the financing bank i.e. Nasik District Central Co-operative Bank. The Collector, Nasik, respondent No. 6 had declared...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »